[geocentrism] Moon Rotation

“where this rotation thread is going (note, not where it has been)?”  A never 
ending circle I’m afraid…..to end up in curt coments of which I must admit am 
enjoying far too much…. 
 
Phil is right about this…” From what I believed, Allen has been postulating MS 
science unrelated to geocentrism..”…at least exclusivley, I have been adressing 
both systems....The two systems must be geometrically equivalent, otherwise 
there is a problem with one or the other or both. Since motion is relative to 
other bodies, this includes rotation…The correct answer, wrt the rotaion of the 
moon, must then be identical to both systems. 
 
I must regress a little now…
This is particularly true when we consider the question of where to draw the 
perimeter at the earth moon system or the edge of the solar system how about at 
the Galaxy…If we are considering the motions of any of those particular sets we 
cannot go outside them to extrapolate additional relative motions for 
rotations. Thus all motions must be considered relative only to all other 
bodies in the system under consideration. If on the other hand we use the 
relative rotation of all matter in the universe then we are back at the same 
spot we began. Every motion must be relative to something else this holds true 
for rotational motion as well, Otherwise, what defines it?  
 
The arguments and demonstrations I have put forward stand on their own. I will 
point once again to my previous and attached here diagram….There is only one 
rotation there, because only the relative motions of any parts to it can be 
considered with respect to the whole..If I include a observer then the 
perimeter of the evaluation extends but not the criteria for what is and is not 
motion. Albeit I’m sure folks with vivid imaginations can certainly envision 
billions upon billions of rotations, one for each molecule around their own 
axis in the plate as well as the very center molecule in the plate, which is 
the only thing in rotation on its on axis in the plate and this is defined by 
the rest of the molecules in the plate.…..This would no doubt not create any 
problem for Phil or Paul. Even though every other molecule in the plate keeps 
the same orientation wrt that center molecule which is rotating on its own 
axis.  They are however now left without
 a clear definition of what motion is, since there is no relative motion 
between the molecules in the plate and the center molecule. Yet they are 
claiming  motion exist…but with a very novel idea……ummmm ..motion without being 
relative.....… 
  

--- On Wed, 12/3/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2008, 9:27 AM








“where this rotation thread is going (note, not where it has been)?”  A never 
ending circle I’m afraid…..to end up in curt coments of which I must admit am 
enjoying far too much…. 
 
Phil is right about this…” From what I believed, Allen has been postulating MS 
science unrelated to geocentrism..”…The two systems must be geometrically 
equivalent, otherwise there is a problem with one or the other or both. Since 
motion is relative to other bodies, this includes rotation…The correct answer 
must then be identical in both systems. 
 
I must regress a little now…
This is particularly true when we consider the question of where to draw the 
perimeter at the earth moon system or the edge of the solar system how about at 
the Galaxy…If we are considering the motions of any of those particular sets we 
cannot go outside them to extrapolate additional relative motions for 
rotations. Thus all motions must be considered relative only to all other 
bodies in the system under consideration. If on the other hand we use the 
relative rotation of all matter in the universe then we are back at the same 
spot we began. Every motion must be relative to something else this holds true 
for rotational motion as well, Otherwise, what defines it?  
 
The arguments and demonstrations I have put forward stand on their own. I will 
point once again to my previous and attached here diagram….There is only one 
rotation there, because only the relative motions of any parts to it can be 
considered with respect to the whole..If I include a observer then the 
perimeter of the evaluation extends but not the criteria for what is and is not 
motion. Albeit I’m sure folks with vivid imaginations can certainly envision 
billions upon billions of rotations, one for each molecule around their own 
axis in the plate as well as the very center molecule in the plate, which is 
the only thing in rotation on its on axis in the plate and this is defined by 
the rest of the molecules in the plate.…..This would no doubt not create any 
problem for Phil or Paul. Even though every other molecule in the plate keeps 
the same orientation wrt that center molecule which is rotating on its own 
axis.  They are however now left without
 a clear definition of what motion is, since there is no relative motion 
between the molecules in the plate and the center molecule. Yet they are 
claiming  motion exist…but with a very novel idea……ummmm ..motion without being 
relative.....… 
  
  
  
  
  
 

Other related posts: